"what it is worth" [THOR]

[Editor's Note: this is the sixth in a series of reviews we'll be sharing on Series 4 of Sherlock. And as is our custom, there are spoilers ahead.]

And I love what it is.That sums up Sherlock for me.

Before I begin, I respect your right to
“not like” some creative work.That’s
your prerogative and criticism is the risk that any creative person takes when
putting their work out.

But if you happen to be one of the vocal types hurling vitriol about Sherlock, exclaiming how violated and disappointed you are, may I
offer some thoughts to consider.

As many of you know, I love Sherlock for
exactly what it is — a very
creative riff on canon, written and performed by some immensely talented guys.

I will never tire of watching the innately
likable Martin Freeman as John Watson struggle with his decency, his desire to
be a good man, hisbravery,his addiction to adrenaline, and his very
debilitating PTSD — not to mention the love he feels for his friend.Which is from time to time tried to the
limits due to his own, and especially to Sherlock’s flaws.

Many found John to have crossed some line
in "The Lying Detective" in a supposed affair and his attack on Sherlock.

I was very sympathetic to John’s struggle
with his attraction to the girl on the bus.So very human, so very poignant.An army surgeon married with a baby and craving adrenalin… well, of
course.My heart ached for him watching
this.

John is a man who examines his actions
regularly.And sufferstremendous guilt for his mistakes.To me that is human and heroic.

There is, by the way, canonical inspiration
to be found in the way Watson describes women with more than a touch of
longing.And of course, a parallel
exists with ACD who enjoyed many social occasions with Jeanne Leckie while
still married to the ailing Touie. A
human being, yet still worthy of our admiration.

Would Dr. John Watson of the original Sherlock Holmes stories have had an
affair?Not likely.But would he — if he were alive now — perhaps
flirt a bit via text?I buy it.Three continents, folks. He didn't do more than text. That showed restraint. I love him for it.

Are you so above such a thought, such a
desire, such a gesture?If so, I do not
find the world so black and white as you do.

Bigger question:would John Watson beat the up an
ailing canonical Holmes? That set off some of you. Not in the Canon, surely. But
Sherlock ratchets up both the rawness of these characters’ emotions and the
extremity of Sherlock’s hubris and John’s PTSD to a point that, to me, became
believable and tragic and moving.It
brought me to tears.I could understand
both points of view so well.Yes, both.

Those characters, those vulnerabilities, have
been carefully constructed, consistently built throughout the series.It’s not the Canon, it’s a version of these
characters which is consistent within the longer arc of the Sherlock series.

And Sherlock himself.Like his canonical counterpart, this Sherlock
is damaged goods with a fragile and inflated ego (it’s all in the stories),
manic behavior and the propensityto self
medicate to alleviate depression and boredom. Except — Sherlock goes farther than the canonical Holmes.Much, much farther, and suffers all the more
from it.Again, I feel sympathy, not
derision. He is an extreme man living in
extreme times.

I will never tire of watching Benedict
Cumberbatch play the genius of immense intellect and emotion – and yes, Mrs.
Hudson was dead on right about this – for all his reasoned brilliance and passion for
the scientific method, Sherlock is primarily an emotional man, and I hold him to be so in the Canon as well.Though in the spirit of the Victorian era, this
element is very much understated on the page.But it peeks through the words, most definitely.

In both Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories and Sherlock this character
is hurting, alone, somewhat of a tragic figure, and all the more heroic for
it.The world applauds his achievements
while he privately collapses.

In the show, for John and Sherlock, bad
stuff happens when their lesser natures briefly overcome them.To me, that is the stuff of powerful
storytelling.

I think some haters, particularly those who
have only recently switched sides to Camp Vitriol where Sherlock is concerned, come to the show with
expectations — expectations that it cleave more closely to the Canon, that it
show John and Sherlock as very much who Watson and Holmes were in the original stories, that
it mimic the Conan Doyle formula they think they remember (and are almost always wrong) concerning the amount of deductions, how accurate was the logic, how active/ inactive, physical/emotional, etc.

Several problems come with that expectation.

First, many get these breakdowns,
percentages, perceptions wrong (though granted, fewer of you who are reading IHOSE).I love Gatiss’s recent rhyming rebuttal to
“there’s too much action” in Sherlock. Hell, no, it's quite canonical. Just depicted in the style of its current medium.

Second: recreating the Canon is not what the creators set
out to do, or ever promised. This is a
riff, not an adaptation. A pastiche, not a faithful retelling. They are
creative, imaginative, inspired, and did what they wanted to do.Why is so much ego ascribed to their work by
the haters?They are artists.This is their
portrait.

I went into an exhibit of Expressionist
painting recently in London.I don’t
much care for this genre; it does not speak to me.My companion was riveted and spent an hour
and a half studying these while I did a quick tour and sat down to write.She had a fascinating takeaway and couldn’t wait
to try some things in her own painting.I was unimpressed but I can assure you that I did not find myself
thinking – what an utter a^*hole for using that much yellow in the corner of
the painting, how is that a bridge, and how dare he call that f%^-ing blob a human
being?

No. This painting is that artist’s take.We can partake, admire, savor, or move
on to what we like better.

I will never paint in this style.I don’t hate or deride these artists for
doing so.

To punitively ascribe "ego" to an artist for
daring to disagree with you by virtue of their choices is just plain wrong.The act of writing, performing, any art form
requires ego, requires a point of view, and requires the creator to reveal him/herself byappearing on the page or canvas or screen.The work itself also has
a form – to a greater or lesser degree – imposed upon it. That’s the challenge of art.

Putting out your "take" on an idea, an image, a story — that is what artists do, and it is the height
of vulnerability.Many of you know
this.You put your work out there and
then stand naked before the crowd.All creative art forms have rules and guidelines. Some tight, some loose. A
classical sonnet is a tight form, an expressionist painting a loose one, but
both are forms.As you put yourself and
your ideas and your story and what it is you want to say into this form, you
also help define the form. And you speak your piece. It's a leap of faith to do this. That’s not ego, that’s what creating is.

A long form drama series is long
form film.A novel is long form print.They require very different things in terms
of plotting and character development than short form. Moffat and Gatiss took a pass at their creative riff on longform filmed Sherlock Holmes. Conan Doyle wrote short form print Sherlock Holmes.

I frankly love Sherlock though not every minute
of it. Sometimes there is a little too much yellow in the corner of the
painting: dialogue too fast, and less inventive villains than I’d like.But do I need to write angrily about this,
detailing with outrage what they woulda, shoulda, coulda done?

I’ve been a screenwriter and a producer and
a development executive for 30 years in Hollywood.I have written one movie that’s been made and sold many scripts and won Emmys
for TV writing. I am published in longform print
Holmes. (Art in the Blood, and the upcoming Unquiet Spirits) So maybe I’m somewhat “qualified” as a
critic, but I will not take the bait and second guess Moffatt and Gatiss and
Cumberbatch and Freeman.

This is an artwork.And I have too much respect.

Let me reiterate: you don’t have to like any
given artwork, I’m not saying that. But
don’t be like that nurse in "The Lying Detective," casually dissing John’s blog in passing, almost as an
afterthought. Maybe she glanced at it on the Tube.Maybe she would have written it differently. Please. Don't be that woman.

A final word on the phrase “it is what it
is ” which tags this episode.This was derided as a platitude by some critics.

This is not a platitude. “Everything happens for a
reason”is a platitude.Say that to me and don't stand too close.

"It is what it is" …is zen. It is the hard won lesson of the adult.It is the serenity prayer, the part about knowing what “things you cannot change” and
understanding and accepting those things.

Mary is dead.Sherlock and John are flawed human
beings.Horrible people who kill others
exist.It is what it is.Sadly.But it is.

Now, that being said, the other part of the
serenity prayer about knowing the difference between what you can and cannot change is crucial. At this precise moment there is a rising panic about what is happening in our country, a malaise that is difficult to endure. We are hoping and praying that "what it is" can be changed.

Some things require action. They require battle gear and courage
and resilience.Despots and liars must
be confronted. Murders must be investigated.Criminals brought to justice.Children
must be taught.Babies must be
nurtured.Art must be created to shine
lights into dark corners and open us to beauty and truth.This is hard, scary work.

And some things require acceptance and
accommodation.Like illness. Like death.They are what they are.

When friends join hands and agree on these
painful things, there is love. And understanding. I love these two men, this particular John
and Sherlock,and their expression in
this crazy form in our crazy times.I
can’t wait for "The Final Problem." Editor's Note: Bonnie MacBird recently received her investiture "Art in the Blood" in the Baker Street Irregulars. The watercolor portrait above is her work.